Friend has fallen into COVID-conspiracies

Hevach

Senior Member.
It's quite likely, and it should make people angry, but it's not evidence of a conspiracy. It's evidence that Congress members often take advantage of knowledge few or none outside the chambers have to enrich themselves, and have crafted insider trading rules and enforcement to shield themselves when they do so. I can't find any data on Congress holding Phizer stock specifically, but easily found many articles about members of both parties buying or selling stocks right before a vote that impacted that industry, or during the gap between regulatory and public notifications.

Which, yes, should make voters angry. But it also hasn't exactly been a secret in my lifetime.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Today he send me a message asking me "Btw, did you know most of members of Congress have Pfizer stocks? If that doesn't seem suspicious, I think nothing will".

I tried to find some info myself, but only thing I found was some data from 2018. What do you think? Is there data to show that claim is true and/or even if it is, it wouldn't mean there is devious stuff going on?
First of all, anyone can make up a claim. It is their job to prove it.

Second, you found the 2018 data, and it was around 50 (Congress has 485 members), and that hasn't changed much:
Article:

10 Most Popular Stocks Owned by Congress in 2021

SmartSelect_20211029-120230_Samsung Internet.jpg


Third, congress doesn't decide whether the vaccine is good; and it's used all over the world, not just in the USA.

Pfizer's a good stock, why wouldn't they invest in it?
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
I think it is interesting that they single out Pfizer. Does nobody in Congress own J&J, or Moderna? Do any of them own stock in any other pharma companies that did not get a vaccine/medicine approved? Any own stock in the companies that make the anti parasitic drugs that the government are pointing out do NOT work?

Most in Congress are pretty well off, they are going to own stock in LOTS of big companies. Heck, I own stock in a lot of companies even though I'm only moderately well off. They're all in various portfolios, so I couldn't tell you which ones I own.

This seems like a more than usually red herring.
 
Last edited:

Itsme

Active Member
I never understood the logic of these conspiracy theories.
Let's assume that a secret cabal constructed a devious plan to decimate the human population and turn the remaining people into sheep. The perfect plan would be:
1. Construct a virus that spreads fast and is deadly in the long term.
2. Let it circulate for a while until half of the population has been infected.
3. Introduce a vaccine to save the other half, but make sure you only save the "sheep" and get rid of the "wolves".

Step 3 is easy, since it's easy to find and infiltrate the social media bubbles where the "wolves" hang out. They are anonymous and not peer reviewed in any serious way. Just confuse them enough to not take the vaccine and let the virus take care of the rest.

So, even if you believe in this conspiracy, taking the vaccine is your safest bet ;)
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Just confuse them enough to not take the vaccine
... and to not take other precautions against infecting themselves.

But the anti-vaxxers believe Ivermectin will do that for them.
And that they won't die because this virus isn't all that deadly.
The ones who die anyway are often quite shocked.
 

PenaH

Member
20211030_184448.jpg
Today he send this to me with text "They will never give up power and this is the proof. Always new variants and always new boosters. They change views on these like god damn yo-yo."

I tried to explain to him that information changes when there is new data and back then we did not know Covid could become that way and he just replied" They really have brainwashed you, haven't they?"
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
From that last that, were it me, it might be time for "I value your friendship, but this is not a topic we can discuss. So how 'bout them <sports team of choice>?!"
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
that information changes when there is new data
That's exactly the right response. All of these headlines have a date. Back in February, the vaccinations provided a strong protection, but as time went on, our bodies tend to "forget" about the threat and need to be reminded - and by September, this was obvious from the data. There are vaccines for other illnesses where the protection lasts longer, and maybe the mRNA vaccines are faster to create but less effective, but there was no way to predict that, we had to wait and see.

Changing your mind when new evidence appears, and being uncertain when no good evidence is to be had, are the hallmarks of a scientific approach to truth.
People who are used to come by their truths through belief may have difficulty to understand this. Uncertainty makes us uncomfortable, but learning to deal with it makes us stronger.
(The observation that the vaccine protection isn't 100% falls in the same category. That something that's not perfect can still be good is sometimes hard to understand.)

I expect that if you can't even get your friend to talk about what he'd do if he was the government and everything was true, he's not mentally able to change his mind on this topic, and contradicting him can only reinforce his position.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I tried to explain to him that information changes when there is new data and back then we did not know Covid could become that way and he just replied" They really have brainwashed you, haven't they?"

maybe you can try first siding with him on some things... like acknowledging that in the beginning when Trump hoped the virus would just go away, even here on MB people kept bashing Trump for that (even a year later). Certain members still bring it up as if Trump was evil for suggesting that.

but when Fauchi or the CDC or Biden (life will be normal after July 4th) makes a mistake, it is all excuses from the left side.

By looking like you are siding with him (sort of), what you would really be doing is reminding him that the left was saying the same things that he is now saying. *unless he hates Trump and the "right" too. some conspiracy theorists hate all government regardless of the side.

Either way, even the left media is complaining that the messaging from health officials has been all over the place and ridiculous. Maybe start your rebuttals acknowledging that and then add the "but..." ex: "you're right, messaging has been ridiculous and all over the place. the mainstream media has been complaining about that too. But what happens is that as we get new information....."
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Today he send this to me
I've looked at the articles behind the mask headlines of May 13 and July 27, because I've learned that only looking at headlines usually means I miss important information.
(I also know this can be annoying to do for people who get their information from short texts and spoken videos. Best you can do for these people is to recommend them a good book - maybe a story collection?)

Article:

People vaccinated against Covid-19 can go without masks indoors and outdoors, CDC says

Walensky's announcement has a few caveats. She warned that people who are immune compromised should speak with their doctors before giving up their masks.
The requirement to wear masks during travel -- on buses, trains, planes and public transportation -- still stands, Walensky said. Guidance for travel will be updated as science emerges.
She also said that "the past year has shown us that this virus can be unpredictable, so if things get worse, there is always a chance we may need to make a change to these recommendations."
People who develop Covid-19 symptoms, even those who are vaccinated, should put their mask back on and get tested, Walensky said.

So we see that the May announcement is not absolute. Changing later is expected if the situation changes.

Article:

CDC updates guidance, recommends vaccinated people wear masks indoors in certain areas

(CNN)To prevent further spread of the Delta variant, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its mask guidance on Tuesday to recommend that fully vaccinated people wear masks indoors when in areas with "substantial" and "high" transmission of Covid-19, which includes nearly two-thirds of all US counties.
"In recent days I have seen new scientific data from recent outbreak investigations showing that the Delta variant behaves uniquely differently from past strains of the virus that cause Covid-19," CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told a media briefing on Tuesday.
"This new science is worrisome and unfortunately warrants an update to our recommendations," she said. "This is not a decision that we or CDC has made lightly."
When the CDC previously revised its guidance on May 13 for vaccinated people to unmask, Delta only represented 1% of reported infections. Now, according to the CDC, it represents at least 83% of cases.
The source also noted that the country's overall level of vaccination is lower than what was initially expected and that most transmission is happening in areas with vaccination levels below 40% of the population.
"When you get information about risks and how to mitigate risks, there's a public health obligation to let people know about it," a senior administration official said.

The part I bolded explains how the situation changed.

And the part I italicized is how I think responsible science and government should act. Ask your friend if he disagrees with this statement.
 
Last edited:

PenaH

Member
Today, he sent me link to website called "Save the Children of Finland", it's apperently organization which tries to stop vaccinations of children and apperently hundreds of medical workers have signed their names to it

https://pelastetaansuomenlapset.fi/#/

He also send me pdf to compliant in which PhD Merit Enckell and lawyer Lauri Saarela put together to put charges on goverment and all healthcare workers and are claiming your averege conspiracy crap

https://koronarealistit.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Kantelu-12-2-2021.pdf

I have tried to be patient with him, understand him, convince him, but no. I can't convince him at all.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Today, he sent me link to website called "Save the Children of Finland", it's apperently organization which tries to stop vaccinations of children and apperently hundreds of medical workers have signed their names to it

https://pelastetaansuomenlapset.fi/#/
This petition is older, and I'd have agreed with it myself in the spring, when we knew less aboit the safety of the vaccines.

They included a footnote (via Google translate):
Our petition was written on the basis of an extensive Pfizer vaccine brochure dated December 10, 2020, in which the subjects were 16 years of age and older. The sample size and follow-up time for the 12–15-year-old group involved were so small that no data were attached to the Emergency Marketing Authorization (EUA) application.

Since then, a study has been carried out, on the basis of which the European Medicines Agency (EMA) extended the conditional marketing authorization for Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine to 12-15-year-olds on 28 May 2021. Of the 1005 vaccinated children, none developed Covid-19 disease, and 1.6% of the 978 unvaccinated CHILDREN became ill.

However, the Authority notes that due to the small size of the study, no conclusions can be drawn on rare adverse reactions. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/first-covid-19-vaccine-approved-children-aged-12-15-eu
Content from External Source
That's similar to what I've recently discussed on this forum at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/covid-vaccine-and-vaers-discussion.12088/#post-259821 and https://www.metabunk.org/threads/covid-vaccine-and-vaers-discussion.12088/post-259838 - the insufficient data on rare problems means benefits should be judged on a case-by-case basis for children under 12. I believe more data for the 12-16 age range is now available.

(1) At the time of writing, the WHO's position was that children should not be vaccinated in the current situation. The WHO changed its position on 22.6.21, stating that vaccinating children “is less urgent”. You can deduce for yourself from whom the request to change the recommendation has come.
Content from External Source
There was no request; the WHO saw new data and adapted their recommendation. They were initially uncertain about the side effects, and therefore did not recommend it; as data became available, their knowledge and certainty grew, and that changed their recommendation. Sounds responsible to me.

The question, again, is "what would you do in this situation if you were making the decisions?" I would do exactly what the WHO did.

As late as March 2021, THL's own website had this reassuring information:
“The coronavirus epidemic has not increased overall mortality in Finland.
Deaths among working-age people are very rare.
No deaths from coronavirus disease in children and adolescents have been reported in Finland. ”

Did this information disrupt the vaccination campaign too much, as it has now been removed from THL’s website?

Content from External Source
This is information that probably changed with the delta variant and is no longer true?

The talk about "long-term effects" is misleading; there aren't any long-term effects from vaccinations that don't become apparent shortly afterwards.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
I have tried to be patient with him, understand him, convince him, but no. I can't convince him at all.
It's frustrating, yes.
Unfortunately, facts tend to not change entrenched beliefs.
When he can no longer get into a mindset of "what if the government info is true", you know he's entrenched.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Oh, almost forgot. He send me this 2 days ago. To an article in which it is claimed that there have been over 2,5 million adverse reactions and about 27 thousand deaths to vaccines according to European Medicines Agency and this site even "predicted" it. I don't know how do they collect data. Is it in same way like VAERS, because if so, it could re rebuttaled same way
Yes, it works basically like VAERS, although I don't know who can add reports to it: it's possible that this is more restricted than VAERS. It's true that, like VAERS, this is a database of suspicions only.

To put "over 2.5 million" in context, according to the ECDC vaccine tracker, EU citizens have received well over 500 million doses of Covid vaccines; the chance of a vaccination ending up in that database is less than 0.5%. Total EU Covid deaths exceed 600 000.

I'm attaching the EudraVigilance interpretation guide (download via https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/pharmacovigilance/eudravigilance ), excerpts:

SmartSelect_20211103-162454_Samsung Notes.jpg
SmartSelect_20211103-162522_Samsung Notes.jpg
Content from External Source
The database frontpage itself carries this statement (Finnish version via https://www.adrreports.eu/ ):
Article:
SmartSelect_20211103-162720_Samsung Internet.jpg
 

Attachments

  • guide-interpretation-spontaneous-case-reports-suspected-adverse-reactions-medicines_en.pdf
    80 KB · Views: 86

deirdre

Senior Member.
there aren't any long-term effects from vaccinations that don't become apparent shortly afterwards.

you keep making statements like this that are untrue.

Article:
Long-Term Side Effects Are Unlikely
Serious side effects that could cause a long-term health problem are extremely unlikely following any vaccination, including COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine monitoring has historically shown that side effects generally happen within six weeks of receiving a vaccine dose. For this reason, the FDA required each of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines to be studied for at least two months (eight weeks) after the final dose. Millions of people have received COVID-19 vaccines, and no long-term side effects have been detected.

CDC continues to closely monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. If scientists find a connection between a safety issue and a vaccine, FDA and the vaccine manufacturer will work toward an appropriate solution to address the specific safety concern (for example, a problem with a specific lot, a manufacturing issue, or the vaccine itself).



Article:
Most people fully recover from GBS, but some have permanent nerve damage.

....
On very rare occasions, people develop GBS in the days or weeks after getting a vaccination.

To study whether a new vaccine might be causing GBS, CDC compares the usual rate of GBS to the observed rate of GBS in vaccinated people. This helps to determine whether a vaccine could be causing more cases.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Vaccine monitoring has historically shown that side effects generally happen within six weeks of receiving a vaccine dose.
Content from External Source
On very rare occasions, people develop GBS in the days or weeks after getting a vaccination.
Content from External Source
you keep making statements like this that are untrue.
If you grant me that "six weeks" is "shortly afterwards", especially considering for how long we've been giving hundreds of thousands of doses now, I don't see how your quotes prove my statement wrong: in fact, they support it!

Remember, I wrote, there aren't any long-term effects from vaccinations that don't become apparent shortly afterwards.

We already know what long-term effects to expect, and except for some rare effects in children under 12, we also have a good idea how frequently to expect them.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
If you grant me that "six weeks" is "shortly afterwards",
i don't. to me "shortly afterwards" is maximum a week...since that's when the vast vast side effects (headache, fatigue, achy, [allergic reaction is like 6 hours]) take place.

the CDC also says that reactions "generally" take place within 6 weeks. "generally" means almost always.

Either way the health officials (at least in my country) don't talk in absolutes, i see no reason for laymen to talk in absolutes on Metabunk.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
They're drumming fear into parents because of some ""unknown long-term side effects". These "unknown long-term side effects" do not exist (for any approved vaccine, not just Covid), and I'm happy to say this unequivocally and absolutely, because I hate fearmongering.

I say with the same certainty and absoluteness that Earth is a ball, and that there was no controlled demolition on 9/11, and for the same reason: because it leaves no room for conspiracy theories where there is none.

The only reason there are "unknown side effects" is that people haven't read the package insert. (I actually had to sign a paper that listed them before they would vaccinate me. And I got to talk to a doctor about it before, as well.)

Sometimes pharma companies have kept side effects of medications (not vaccines!) secret that they knew about, but this comes to light with widespread use, and Covid vaccines are one of the most widely used and best-researched medications on the planet by now. (This was different in January, but it's true today.)
 
Last edited:

dc_hatman

Member
i don't. to me "shortly afterwards" is maximum a week...since that's when the vast vast side effects (headache, fatigue, achy, [allergic reaction is like 6 hours]) take place.

the CDC also says that reactions "generally" take place within 6 weeks. "generally" means almost always.

Either way the health officials (at least in my country) don't talk in absolutes, i see no reason for laymen to talk in absolutes on Metabunk.
Not taking sides in your debate, but I wanted to just say that have some knowledge in this area as I work in the pharmaceutical industry, and discuss side effects with doctors on a daily basis. What I can tell you is that generally when talking about efficacy and safety “short term” means up to 6 weeks, and long term is longer than 6 weeks. For example, when applying for approval of a medication short term and long term studies proving the efficacy and safety of a medication has to be submitted to the regularity board of whatever country the approval is being seeked, with short term studies almost always being 6 week studies, and long term studies being 6 months up to a year.

So as far as 6 weeks being considered “shortly afterwards”, from a medical point of view it most definitely is. Most doctors would agree that a side effect appearing at the 5 to 6 week mark is still considered shorty afterwards, and I know from discussions with doctors that if a side effect went away after 6 weeks the doctor would most definitely consider it a short term side effect.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
They're drumming fear into parents because of some ""unknown long-term side effects". These "unknown long-term side effects" do not exist (for any approved vaccine, not just Covid), and I'm happy to say this unequivocally and absolutely, because I hate fearmongering.
See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/covid-vaccine-and-vaers-discussion.12088/post-260053 for a selection of sources supporting this.

The conspiracy theorists speak with confidence where it is not warranted.
We should speak with confidence where it is.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
We should speak with confidence where it is.
we should speak with accuracy.

What I can tell you is that generally when talking about efficacy and safety “short term” means up to 6 weeks, and long term is longer than 6 weeks
well i'll believe your anecdotal evidence, although the medical dictionary seems to be saying less than a month and the WHO makes my "a week" sound more right. Still most readers are not pharmaceutical salesmen, so are probably basing comprehension off of common wording in covid vaccine articles or the CDC wording.

Article:
short-term
Pert. to a brief period of time, usually as long as a day but less than a month.


Article:
Long-term side effects
Side effects usually occur within the first few days of getting a vaccine.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Still most readers are not pharmaceutical salesmen, so are probably basing comprehension off of common wording in covid vaccine articles or the CDC wording.
How late would a side effect have to appear for it to be "unknown" to science at this point, as the fearmongers claim? (That was the original context.)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
How late would a side effect have to appear for it to be "unknown" to science at this point, as the fearmongers claim? (That was the original context.)
actually i couldnt find any text in this thread relating to the original content of your statement.

and if you were talking about "unknown" side effects you should have said "unknown side effects" in your original comment. I'm not going to help you pretend that you moving the goalposts disproves my original comment.
 

dc_hatman

Member
we should speak with accuracy.


well i'll believe your anecdotal evidence, although the medical dictionary seems to be saying less than a month and the WHO makes my "a week" sound more right. Still most readers are not pharmaceutical salesmen, so are probably basing comprehension off of common wording in covid vaccine articles or the CDC wording.

Article:
short-term
Pert. to a brief period of time, usually as long as a day but less than a month.


Article:
Long-term side effects
Side effects usually occur within the first few days of getting a vaccine.

Ok then, I will do a little survey over the next few weeks. During my interactions with doctors I will ask them what they consider long term and short term side effects, including time periods. I promote to psychiatrists at the moment, who prescribe drugs that unfortunately have a lot of side effects, so they would be well qualified to answer this. My access to doctors is still somewhat limited due to Covid-19 and I am mainly talking to them via Zoom, but I should be able to get a couple of dozen opinions on how long after administering a drug would they consider a side effect to be short or long term. I will report back the results.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I promote to psychiatrists at the moment, who prescribe drugs that unfortunately have a lot of side effects, so they would be well qualified to answer this.
the problem with that is that psych meds are meds you take daily or several times a day. so they accumulate. the vaccine i guess could be considered accumulating as there's a second dose either 3 weeks or 4 weeks apart.

But any input they could give you would be great to hear.
Still psychiatrists are still medical doctors, so should be able to give at least a somewhat informative view on vaccine definitions.
 

dc_hatman

Member
the problem with that is that psych meds are meds you take daily or several times a day. so they accumulate. the vaccine i guess could be considered accumulating as there's a second dose either 3 weeks or 4 weeks apart.

But any input they could give you would be great to hear.
Still psychiatrists are still medical doctors, so should be able to give at least a somewhat informative view on vaccine definitions.
Unfortunately with my current role it is only the psychiatrists that I am dealing with. I am happy also discussing this topic with family members and friends who are doctors with a wide variety of specialities, to add a bit of diversity to my survey, I can add mental health and community nurses who I come into contact with too and survey them.

An interesting lot, the psychiatrists. Totally different bunch of people to any other group of doctors who I have worked with in my 16 years in the pharmaceutical industry. To say they are eccentric would be an understatement, and they acknowledge that themselves. A few years ago I was at a psychiatry conference in Hong Kong run by the RANZCP (Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists), and one of the psychiatrists invited me to attend a debate she was a panelist in titled “50 percent of us need psychiatric care”. I asked her if the title of the debate applies to the general public, or to the psychiatrists at the conference, and she answered “no, it applies to the general public. It is well established and accepted that 100% of psychiatrists need psychiatric care”.
 

Mythic Suns

Member
"that's what they want you to think"
That line alone is a fallacy conspiracy theorists love to use. It's basically just a means of accusing anyone of anything without needing to provide evidence. You could say your neighbour owns a spaceship capable of FTL travel, someone could retort with "that's not possible, because (insert scientific reasoning here)", and then you can say "that's just what the scientists want you to think" and then just apply that reasoning to specific people on the internet and with the right collection of words uttered in the right way you'll have a bunch of people demanding your neighbour gives up his spaceship. Who needs evidence when paranoia and suspicion will suffice?

Since I'm worried I'm getting off topic I'll bring it back by saying that it might be worth mentioning the fallacy of this quote to your friend and try to get him to understand the importance of evidence. He might say that the evidence is being hidden but unfortunately even that requires evidence in itself, otherwise it's nothing but suspicion being pushed by their worldview.
 

PenaH

Member
More stuff send today. Now he has really gotten into story about woman named Jaana Kavonius who went on hunger strike to opppse covid mandates and passport and last night collapsed and was given CPR by MP, Päivi Räsänen and sent to hospital. He send me this on the subject.

"This is lawyer Jaana Kavonius from Lohja. She is, in a way, a celebrity, as she has been publishing information on the criminal activities of the judiciary and the police since the 1990s. She could be described as an activist and / or at least even the maintainer of a social “blog” or something like that because he publishes information on his own website.
Kavonius has made a lot of noise about the legal protection topic, scamdemic and vaccines, that she’s been driving for at least the past year, but the mainstream media has almost completely ignored things. To my knowledge, only one piece of news has been made on the mtv site about the Satan Worship cult, whose victim Kavonius helped (did the work of a lawyer for free). That new "MP Päivi Räsänen saves hunger striker" news included one bad photo (there is a shadow in the middle of the picture) of a motorhome in which Kavonius was on hunger strike in front of the presidential castle.
Then, when the activist does not get his voice heard in the mainstream media, she contacts alternative media: (MV-lehti, laiton lehti, Mikko Kempen podcast, Leveli podcast.) Some of these are also censored on youtube, and what is remained, can be used as a weapon and Kavonius can be labled as "conspiracy nut" and only is written in media lik MV "propaganda news" Lehti. If this censorship does not prove that the aim here is to spread the propaganda of one truth, then nothing."

And as a bonus, bunch of links to Kavonius interviews in couple of these medias and google image link in which are bunch of more of these links to news and speeches.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
. If this censorship does not prove that the aim here is to spread the propaganda of one truth, then nothing
Is there any proof that media in Finland get censored?
Because I don't think they are.
It just proves that most editors think Kavonius is a crackpot, and they don't want to provide a platform for her misinformation.

I couldn't find anything on her in English or German. How old is she?
 

Mechanik

Active Member
A quick Google search in the US turns up a lot of photos and quite a few YouTube videos plus some tweets, and a Facebook page. There are some articles, too but they seem to be blogs reporting on her podcasts.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
A few bits of psychology:

A cognitive bias is a non-conscious error in thinking that leads one to misinterpret information, and affects the rationality and accuracy of decisions and judgments. Biases are non-conscious and non-effortful; which make decision-making quicker and more efficient. (See Daniel Kahneman - System One thinking).*

Cognitive biases can be caused by a number of different things, such as heuristics (mental shortcuts), social pressures, and emotions.

Cognitive bias theory was first developed by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. It's theory of flawed patterns of thinking in response to judgment and decision problems.


Confirmation bias: To search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a manner that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.

Availability heuristic: A System One heuristic that relies on immediate examples that come to mind when evaluating a specific topic, concept, method or decision. If something can be recalled more easily, it is given more weight. (It seems more true or more important.)

Can be intertwined and synergistic with confirmation bias. People seek out confirming information, thus it becomes dominantly available. People constantly mull over confirming information and neglect disconfirming information; thus confirming information more easily comes to mind. People also make up their own facts, which become more available than commonly accepted facts.

*Daniel Kahneman's theory discussed here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/re...mous-idea-christine-garwood.7950/#post-205390
 
Last edited:

PenaH

Member
Is there any proof that media in Finland get censored?
Because I don't think they are.
It just proves that most editors think Kavonius is a crackpot, and they don't want to provide a platform for her misinformation.

I couldn't find anything on her in English or German. How old is she?
Only that in mainstream medias she is only refered as "woman that collapsed after seven day hunger strike" without giving reason for it. While alternatives tell "the whole story".

I don't know her exact age, but alternatives love to mention how she graduated with top scores in 1985. So, she is in her 50's. One other celeb that graduated same year is 55, so that is propably it too.

Here are examples:

Iltalehti (Mainstream media): https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/d7dd8af5-79c8-47d1-b198-4012ea1bf78d

Laiton lehti (Alternative): https://laitonlehti.net/2021/11/07/jaana-kavonius-ambulanssilla-sairaalaan/

EDIT:
Looks like Iltalehti has added small mention to post that they will not reveal identity of Kavonius due to privacy reason. Wonder how her supporters are gonna take that one
 
Last edited:

PenaH

Member
6baec88aee4a17a96cc4d41477f2a2758fbff2b1afc327437ae9c672d00e0745.jpg
Did Iltalehti choose a particularly bad picture of the camper van, or are her banner-writing skills generally this bad? Because from this, it looks like she's protesting corruption more than vaccines.

"Virka-Mafia" seems to mean "(government-)employed mafia".
Well to be fair. My friend did say:
That new "MP Päivi Räsänen saves hunger striker" news included one bad photo (there is a shadow in the middle of the picture) of a motorhome in which Kavonius was on hunger strike in front of the presidential castle.
So at least in his opinion yes, but for different reasons (not sharing it's meanings, nothing about protester herself, etc.)

And if I don't remember wrong, Kavonius has said she thinks vaccine mandates and pushing of passport is part of corruption and turning blind eye to pharmacutical industries atrocities. I could remember wrong, but at very least a lot of her supporters have said this and think that way
 

Itsme

Active Member
Provocative statement from an article on Psychology Today:
conspiracy theory beliefs stem from mistrust and misinformation that is pervasive in the world today, they can be thought of as more a reflection of a sick society than individual mental illness
Source

Maybe, instead of trying to convince him, you can start with an acknowledgement that our society is sick, which makes people confused. Hopefully he can admit his confusion to himself, as a logical consequence of our current society. This could create an opening to re-assess the COVID info from all sources. And hopefully he'll understand that the sources that are publicly exposed and reviewed most, tend to be the most reliable ones.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
So at least in his opinion yes, but for different reasons (not sharing it's meanings, nothing about protester herself, etc.)
The fact that they redacted her name suggests to me that she hasn't signed a release form, and that may in fact limit what the newspaper can publish.

I'm not really sure how the photo could be better? The shadow doesn't obscure any of the writing, what was the photographer supposed to do about it?
 

PenaH

Member
Today he send me stuff on whole Astroworld incident. Many pf these conspiracy folks have been trying to blame vaccines for all the cardiac arrests in the show with different explanations like it was just the vaccines or somehow frequency somehow activated vaccines graphene to kill mode and other sci-fi explanations like that. And some saying Travis Scott is puppet of NWO and so on.

Now, he send me just this link without any text, in which it is claimed that media is lying that it was "just" 11 and is actually 100.

Source: https://twitter.com/imagine1984/status/1457298739450744837?s=20
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Article:
At least 23 people were hospitalized and 300 were treated by on-site medics, police said. Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said the eight victims’ ages ranged from 14 to 27.

I have no idea why your friend trusts the people who say 100 have died.

Article:
A heart attack is more likely to develop when the work load of the heart increases, for example while a person is shoveling snow or running up the stairs, especially in people who do not routinely engage in physical exertion.

Like couch potatoes going to a concert and jumping like mad in the first row while also getting dehydrated.

Compare also this:
Article:
On 24 July 2010, a crowd disaster (crush) at the 2010 Love Parade electronic dance music festival in Duisburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, caused the deaths of 21 people from suffocation as attendees tried to escape a crowded tunnel.[1] At least 500 more were injured.[2]
 
Top